|
This is ludicrous. If they think there
is cause to look at someone's private finances they should be forced to get a
judge's OK.
Charles Mims
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jen -- Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2004 10:55 AM To: 'The Sandbox Discussion List' Subject: [Sndbox] Bush Gives More Power To FBI While the nation was distracted last month by images of
Saddam Hussein's spider hole and dental exam, President George W. Bush quietly
signed into law a new bill that gives the FBI increased surveillance powers and
dramatically expands the reach of the USA Patriot Act.
The
Intelligence
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 grants the FBI unprecedented power to
obtain records from financial institutions without requiring permission from a
judge. Under the law, the FBI does not need to seek a court
order to access such records, nor does it need to prove just cause.
Previously, under the Patriot Act, the FBI had to submit
subpoena requests to a federal judge. Intelligence agencies and the Treasury
Department, however, could obtain some financial data from banks, credit unions
and other financial institutions without a court order or grand jury subpoena if
they had the approval of a senior government official.
The
new law (see Section 374 of the act), however, lets the FBI acquire these
records through an administrative procedure whereby an FBI field agent simply
drafts a so-called national security letter stating the information is relevant
to a national security investigation. And
the law broadens the definition of "financial institution" to include such
businesses as insurance companies, travel agencies, real estate agents,
stockbrokers, the U.S. Postal Service and even jewelry stores, casinos and car
dealerships. The
law also prohibits subpoenaed businesses from revealing to anyone, including
customers who may be under investigation, that the government has requested
records of their transactions. Bush signed the bill on Dec. 13, a Saturday, which was
the same day the Some columnists and bloggers have accused
the president of signing the legislation on a weekend, when news organizations
traditionally operate with a reduced staff, to avoid public scrutiny and
criticism. Any attention that might have been given the bill, they say, was
supplanted by a White House announcement the next day about Hussein's capture.
James Dempsey, executive director of the Center for Democracy & Technology, didn't see
any significance to the timing of Bush's signing. The 2004 fiscal year began
Oct. 1 and the Senate passed the bill in November. He said there was pressure to
pass the legislation to free up intelligence spending.
However, Dempsey called the inclusion of the financial
provision "an intentional end-run" by the administration to expand the
administration's power without proper review. Critics like Dempsey say the government is trying to
pass legislation that was shot down prior to the The
so-called Patriot Act II was discovered by the Center for Public
Integrity last year, which exposed the draft legislation and initiated a
public outcry that forced the government to back down on its plans.
But
critics say the government didn't abandon its goals after the uproar; it simply
extracted the most controversial provisions from Patriot Act II and slipped them
surreptitiously into other bills, such as the Intelligence Authorization Act, to
avoid raising alarm. Dempsey said the Intelligence Authorization Act is a
favorite vehicle of politicians for expanding government powers without careful
scrutiny. The bill, because of its sensitive nature, is generally drafted in
relative secrecy and approved without extensive debate because it is viewed as a
"must-pass" piece of legislation. The act provides funding for intelligence
agencies. "It's hard for the average member to vote against it,"
said Dempsey, "so it makes the perfect vehicle for getting what you want without
too much fuss." The
provision granting increased power was little more than a single line of
legislation. But Dempsey said it was written in such a cryptic manner that no
one noticed its significance until it was too late.
"We
were the first to notice it outside of Congress," he said, "but we only noticed
it in September after it had already passed in the House."
Rep. Porter
Goss (R-Florida), chairman of the House Intelligence Committee that reviewed
the bill, introduced the legislation into the House last year on June 11, where
it passed two weeks later by a vote of 264-163. The Senate
passed the legislation with a voice vote in November, which means there is no
record of how individual senators voted or the number who opposed or supported
it. Goss's staff said he was out of the country and
unavailable for comment. But Goss told the House last year that he believed the
financial institution provision in the bill brought the intelligence community
up to date with the reality of the financial industry.
"This bill will allow those tracking terrorists and
spies to 'follow the money' more effectively and thereby protect the people of
the But
Rep. Betty McCollum (D-Minnesota), who opposed the legislation, told the House,
"It is clear the Republican leadership and the administration would rather
expand on the USA Patriot Act through deception and secrecy than debate such
provisions in an open forum." A
number of other representatives expressed concern that the financial provision
was slipped into the Intelligence Act at the 11th hour with no time for public
debate and against objections from members the Senate Judiciary Committee, which
normally has jurisdiction over the FBI. Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont), the
minority leader of the Senate Judiciary Committee, along with five other members
of the Judiciary Committee, sent a letter to the Intelligence Committee
requesting that their committee be given time to review the bill. But the
provision had already passed by the time their letter went out.
"In
our fight to protect Charlie Mitchell, legislative counsel for the American
Civil Liberties Union, said many legislators failed to recognize the
significance of the legislation until it was too late. But the fact that 15
Republicans and over 100 Democrats voted against the bill in the House signifies
that, had there been more time, there probably would have been sufficient
opposition to remove the provision. "To
have that many people vote against it, based on just that one provision without
discussion beforehand, signifies there is strong opposition to new Patriot Act
II powers," Mitchell said. He
said legislators are now on the lookout for other Patriot Act II provisions
being tucked into new legislation. "All things considered, this was a loss for civil
liberties," he said. But on a brighter note, "this was the only provision of
Patriot II that made it through this year. Members are hearing from their
constituents. I really think we have the ability to stop much of this Patriot
Act II legislation in the future." Jen
-- |
_______________________________________________ Sndbox mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://a8.mewebdns-a8.com/mailman/listinfo/sndbox_sandboxmail.net
